I appreciate your heart for reducing division, and I agree that compassion should lead our conversations. But I think there’s a fundamental problem with the framing here that we need to address honestly.
You’re advocating for kinder delivery while maintaining that certain groups of people (immigrants, LGBTQ individuals) are inherently sinful or don’t belong. But here’s the thing: you can’t separate how you say something from what you’re saying. Telling someone their marriage is invalid or their family should be deported, but doing it “with compassion,” doesn’t make it compassionate. It makes it paternalistic.
The political divide isn’t just about tone or manners. It’s about whose humanity we’re willing to defend. When you say “there’s no middle ground” on LGBTQ relationships, you’re not taking a neutral theological stance. You’re actively supporting policies and rhetoric that harm real people. Kids get kicked out of their homes. People lose their jobs. Families are torn apart. That’s not abstract theology. That’s concrete suffering.
And let’s talk about the Matthew 25 passage you quoted, because I think you’re closer to the truth there than you realize. Jesus didn’t say “I was a stranger, and you made sure I had the proper documentation before inviting me in.” He didn’t say “I was hungry, but only if you were here legally.” The entire point of that passage is radical, unconditional care for the vulnerable, with no asterisks, no qualifying conditions.
Here’s where your post breaks down for me: You want to “overcome evil with good” and “seek peace,” but you’re still defending a political movement that:
∙ Terrorizes immigrant families (like what’s happening in Minnesota right now)
∙ Strips healthcare from the poor
∙ Demonizes refugees and asylum seekers
∙ Attacks the dignity of LGBTQ people
∙ Concentrates wealth among the already wealthy while gutting support for the vulnerable
You can’t be for the “least of these” in your personal life while voting for policies that crush them. That’s not political division. That’s moral contradiction.
When you say “sin is sin” and we shouldn’t compromise on abortion or LGBTQ issues, but then vote for leaders who mock the disabled, brag about sexual assault, lie constantly, stoke hatred, and enrich themselves through corruption, what message does that send? It says those “sins” don’t actually matter. It says the only “real” sins are the ones that align with your political tribe.
Here’s my actual concern with your approach: You’re treating the political divide as a communication problem when it’s actually a justice problem. It’s not that Democrats are too mean or too loud. It’s that we fundamentally disagree about whether certain people deserve dignity, safety, and equal treatment under the law.
You want peaceful conversations, and so do I. But peace without justice isn’t peace. It’s just the absence of conflict for those comfortable enough not to be harmed by the status quo. The prophets didn’t call for civility. They called for justice. Jesus didn’t politely ask the money changers to consider a different business model.
If you’re truly serious about following Christ’s example, I’d challenge you to ask: What if your politics are the problem, not your tone? What if the “screaming voices” you want to tune out are actually people crying out because they’re being harmed, not by rhetoric, but by actual policy?
You say you want to see change in your community. Here’s my question: Are you willing to examine whether your politics actually reflect what Scripture calls you to do? Because all the compassionate conversations in the world won’t help if you’re still empowering leaders who actively harm the vulnerable.
I’m not saying this to attack you. I’m saying it because I think you genuinely want to live out your faith. But right now, your faith and your politics are in direct contradiction. The solution isn’t to be nicer about your politics. It’s to examine whether your politics actually reflect what Scripture calls us to do.
Because here’s what I see: The version of Christianity that’s become entangled with MAGA politics isn’t actually rooted in the Gospel. It’s rooted in Christian nationalism, which has a documented history of being built on racism, xenophobia, and the protection of power rather than the protection of the vulnerable. That’s not me being divisive. That’s history.
When the Bible talks about welcoming the stranger, it doesn’t add “unless they crossed the border illegally.” When Jesus says “whatever you did for the least of these,” he doesn’t footnote it with “except if they’re undocumented.”
When he commands us to love our neighbors, he doesn’t give us permission to decide who counts as a neighbor based on their documentation status or who they love.
Your faith and politics absolutely should align. But they should align with what the Bible actually says about caring for the vulnerable, welcoming the stranger, defending the oppressed, and loving without condition. Not with a political ideology that’s co-opted Christian language while rejecting Christian values.
The question isn’t whether you should bring your faith into politics. The question is: Are you bringing Jesus into your politics, or are you bringing your politics to Jesus and asking him to bless them?
Christ called us to love our neighbors. Not just the ones who look like us, believe like us, or were born in the same country. All of them. No exceptions. No asterisks. No “but they broke the law” or “but the Bible says.” Just love.
That’s the standard. Anything less isn’t “Biblical conservatism.” It’s just conservatism with a Bible verse attached.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this post and leave a comment. I read your response and do thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, I strongly believe that my point still remains solid. My theology and beliefs in politics or how I manage political decisions are, in fact, Biblical and solid. However, there is a major fundamental issue with your entire argument.
What I find the most interesting about your argument is that you focus on "justice" and yet your final statement you say it should not be about "but they broke the law." I am curious as to what your definition of justice is because it means to "judge." The very purpose of justice is to divide the innocent from the guilty, so if we go about "loving everyone" then that means people like murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, and all criminals of the sort should simply be loved and the victims have no justice at all. As Christians, we are to love everyone. We are to offer them the forgiveness and salvation of Christ...but as American citizens or illegals we do not get a "get out of jail free card" from the crimes we commit against the government.
If love is the standard, then tell me what love is to you? Where is the fine line of justice drawn? What is justice to you? And where do you get your definition of justice? Because if it's just selective justice based on personal agenda and what feels right and humane, then that is absolutely not biblical. It is anit-God and anti-America.
Jesus calls us to obey the law, not break it. If a person from a different country enters the United States of America, they become a law breaker. Therefore, a criminal in the eyes of the law. We are not against immigration, but we are against illegal immigration. The fine line that CAN divide the just from the un-just. If a innocent man decided to illegally bring him and his family into this nation, he chose to face the consequences. He chose to break the law. The consequences that follow is a result of his mistake. Yet, you call this "paternalistic." No, it's the result of one's choices.
Or should we promote a life where consequences do not exist? Won't "no consequences" simply promote more evil doing and mix the justice with the un-justice? You keep saying enforcing the law isn't love. Illegal aliens are criminals because they violated one or both of two laws: 8 U.S.C. 1325 and/or 8 U.S.C. 1326. According to your definition of "love," loving people would mean not enforcing the law on those criminals. But you proceed to call for justice and says that's what the Democrats are doing.
So which is it? Does justice include carrying out the existing law as stated in 8 USC 1325 & 1326? Because justice means the law is followed.
Please, I would like an elaboration of what "justice" you believe Democrats are trying to bring, since they're the ones in open defiance of 8 USC 1325 & 1326. If justice means ignoring laws we don't like, then "justice" just means "whatever I want." Without the rule of law, there is no justice, just the arbitrary exercise of power.
Biblical Support: Enforcing law against wrongdoers is the government's God-given job.
Romans 13:3-4: "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad... But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain."
Deuteronomy 16:20: "Justice, and only justice, you shall follow."
Not selective justice based on which group you sympathize with, actual justice.
My major disagreements and observations with the rest of your argument:
1. Ad Hominem fallacy: You never engage my actual argument (seeking peace in political discussions). Instead, you attack my political positions instead. This also proves my point by being divisive and judgmental while accusing me of being un-Christian or directly challenging my faith. My entire post was specifically about talking to the Christians and how we should seek peace in our political conversations. You may have carried a gentle tone with your response, and I thank you for that, but it is not Christ-like to throw in the term "peace" while specifically picking apart my beliefs and faith. Just because you believe I am wrong. If this post was political instead of theological, where I am discussing the different policies of both the liberals and conservatives, your comment would have been appropriate. But instead, your comment perfectly proves my point of the much greater need for Christians to better carry themselves in politics. No one should be accusing anyone of not being Christ-like or a "real" Christian, rather we should be discussing what it means to being Christ-like and a Follower of Jesus Christ.
2. False equivalence fallacy: You conflate policy disagreements with lack of compassion. I can disagree on HOW to help people without that meaning I don't care about them. Both sides want good outcomes; we just disagree on methods.
3. Your definition of love: You define love as sentimental affirmation rather than biblical self-sacrifice for others' good. Biblical love includes truth, correction, boundaries, and sometimes saying "no" (John 8:11, Proverbs 27:6, Revelation 3:19).
4. Confusing personal ethics with the duty of the state: You apply personal Christian ethics (love, mercy) to government policy. But Romans 13 says the government's job is JUSTICE, bearing the sword to punish wrongdoing, not showing unconditional mercy. In the OT, the job of Israel's government is clearly primarily to enforce the law and maintain order. When, Biblically speaking, love and mercy are for the sinners. All sinners can find repentance and salvation no matter what they did. That is NOT the same scales as the enforcement of the government law in the United States of America. Romans 13 commands us to obey our government, not go against it just because we are "Christians, saved, and do whatever we can because we are always right in the eyes of God's law and the government's law."
5. The justice contradiction: You say enforcing immigration law isn't loving, but then call for "justice." So does justice include enforcing law or not? You seem to want it both ways. Real justice means upholding the law consistently (Deuteronomy 16:20, Proverbs 17:15).
6. The "No Exceptions" fallacy: Your "love all neighbors with no exceptions" is actually highly selective. You are prioritizing illegal immigrants and LGBTQ individuals while ignoring the unborn, struggling citizens, and children harmed by progressive policies. That's not "no exceptions". Babies should be born, legal American citizens should be priority over illegal, and children should be protected (and parents should remain as the protectors) from sexuality agendas and being forced to learn the world of transgenderism.
7. The "Love trumps the Bible" incoherence: Is you saying love matters more than "what the Bible says," but you also got the command to love from the Bible. So you are using the Bible to override the Bible. A major contradiction.
8. Denying human responsibility: Your framework treats illegal immigrants, the poor, and LGBTQ individuals as passive victims with no moral agency, while blaming me or my political party for their situations. This contradicts biblical teaching on individual responsibility. If an illegal gets caught and sent back home, that is them taking responsibility. If a transgender individual is told to use the proper bathroom according to their BORN sex, that is them taking responsibility. (Ezekiel 18:20, Galatians 6:5, Romans 14:12).
9. Zero recognition of trade-offs: Governance is not simple and there's one obvious "loving" answer to every question. But real-world policy involves balancing competing goods (security vs. compassion, justice vs. mercy, protecting children vs. affirming adults). If letting illegals in harms existing citizens, but removing them harms the illegals, which do we pick? Either way, someone is going to be harmed. And it appears you would rather have the US citizen harmed than the illegal, to whom this country owes nothing. Faithful Christians can disagree on these prudential judgments (Proverbs 11:14, 24:6, James 1:5).
Romans 13: 1-4," Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same."
I strongly encouraging all of Romans 13 because it talks about our roles as Christians with politics. And I pray this sheds light on the Truth of Jesus Christ because the Bible remains eternal and forever true. However, if you and I still disagree, we disagree. Regardless, thank you for sharing your thoughts and for reading my own. God Bless You.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I can tell you’ve put thought into this. However, I need to address some fundamental problems with your argument before we can have a productive conversation.
On what I actually said:
You claim I committed an “ad hominem fallacy” by attacking your political positions instead of engaging your argument about seeking peace. But that’s not what happened. Your post was explicitly about how Christians should engage in politics while maintaining their conservative values. I responded by challenging whether those conservative political positions actually align with Christian values. That’s not ad hominem. That’s the entire point.
You can’t write a post about faith and politics and then claim it’s inappropriate for someone to examine whether your politics reflect your faith. If your argument is “Christians should be more peaceful in political conversations while maintaining biblical standards,” then someone pointing out that your political positions contradict biblical standards is directly relevant.
On Romans 13 and “obeying the law”:
You’ve built your entire counterargument on the idea that Christians must obey government authority and that enforcing immigration law is the government’s God-given job. But this interpretation has a fatal flaw: it would make the early Christians sinners.
Paul himself, who wrote Romans 13, repeatedly broke Roman law by preaching the gospel. He was imprisoned multiple times for civil disobedience. Peter explicitly said “We must obey God rather than human authority” when ordered to stop preaching (Acts 5:29). The Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh to save babies, and God blessed them for it (Exodus 1:15-21). Rahab hid spies from the government and is praised in Hebrews 11 for her faith.
If Romans 13 means Christians must obey all government laws without question, then:
∙ Christians in Nazi Germany had a biblical duty to turn in Jews
∙ Christians under slavery had a biblical duty not to help people escape
∙ Civil rights activists who broke segregation laws were sinning
∙ Jesus himself sinned by violating Sabbath laws
That’s obviously absurd. Romans 13 establishes that God ordains governance as a structure, not that every government action is righteous or that every law is just. When government becomes the oppressor, Christians have a duty to resist, not comply.
You say justice means “to judge” and divide the innocent from the guilty, and therefore we can’t just “love everyone” without consequences for lawbreakers. But this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of biblical justice.
Biblical justice isn’t primarily about punishment. It’s about restoration, defending the vulnerable, and making things right. When the prophets cry out for justice, they’re not demanding stricter law enforcement. They’re demanding that the powerful stop exploiting the powerless:
∙ Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
∙ Jeremiah 22:3: “Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed.”
∙ Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
Notice that justice and mercy aren’t opposed in Scripture. They’re united. Justice IS mercy in action. It’s standing with the oppressed. It’s protecting the vulnerable. It’s confronting systems that harm people.
You’re conflating justice with legality, but laws can be unjust. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. Denying women the vote was legal. The Holocaust was legal under Nazi law. “It’s the law” has never been a sufficient moral argument, and it’s certainly not a Christian one.
On comparing immigration violations to murder and rape:
You write: “if we go about ‘loving everyone’ then that means people like murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, and all criminals of the sort should simply be loved and the victims have no justice at all.”
This is a deeply disingenuous comparison. A person crossing a border to escape violence or provide for their family is not morally equivalent to a murderer or rapist. Unlawful presence is a civil violation, legally equivalent to a parking ticket, not a violent crime.
And here’s what you need to understand: Many of the people being deported are following legal processes. Seeking asylum is legal under both U.S. and international law. Many asylum seekers present themselves at ports of entry, follow the process exactly as prescribed, and are still detained, separated from their children, or deported to danger.
So when you say “they chose to break the law,” you’re making an assumption that isn’t always true. And even when it is true, the “consequences” you’re defending include:
∙ Separating children from parents (often permanently)
∙ Detaining people in inhumane conditions
∙ Deporting people to countries where they’ll be killed
∙ Creating a climate of terror in entire communities
And speaking of consequences, let me tell you what’s actually happening in Minnesota right now, since I mentioned it in my original response:
ICE’s “Operation Metro Surge” has killed two U.S. citizens (Renée Good and Alex Pretti), conducted surveillance of Catholic churches, and created such a climate of fear that immigrant families are too afraid to attend Mass. Catholic leaders in Minnesota have publicly stated that their parishioners are terrified to come to church because of ICE.
So when you defend these operations by saying “they’re just enforcing the law,” you’re defending actions that
1. Killed American citizens
2. Terrorized Catholic families
3. Made people too afraid to worship
Is that justice? Is that what Romans 13 calls the government to do? Or is that exactly the kind of government oppression that Christians have a duty to resist?
On “choosing consequences”:
You write: “If a innocent man decided to illegally bring him and his family into this nation, he chose to face the consequences. He chose to break the law. The consequences that follow is a result of his mistake.”
But context matters. If someone is fleeing gang violence that’s killed their neighbors, if someone’s children are starving, if someone is escaping political persecution, their “choice” to cross a border is made under extreme duress. To call that a “choice” as if they had a range of good options is to ignore reality.
And Jesus himself modeled this understanding. When his disciples picked grain on the Sabbath (which was breaking the law), the Pharisees condemned them. Jesus’s response wasn’t “well, they chose to break the law and must face consequences.” It was “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). In other words, the law exists to serve people, not the other way around.
When the law crushes people, Jesus sides with people over the law. Every single time.
On Matthew 25:
You didn’t actually address my point about Matthew 25, so let me restate it:
Jesus says whatever we do for “the least of these,” we do for him. He specifically lists: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned.
Notice what’s NOT on that list: “the innocent,” “the law-abiding,” “the ones with proper documentation,” “the ones who made good choices.”
He doesn’t say “I was a stranger, but you checked my papers first.” He says “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” No qualifications. No asterisks. No footnotes about legal status.
So when immigrant families (who fit the biblical definition of “stranger”) are being terrorized, separated, and deported, and you defend those actions by saying “well, they broke the law,” you’re adding a condition Jesus didn’t add.
You accuse me of prioritizing certain groups while ignoring the unborn. But here’s what I actually believe:
I think abortion is a tragedy. I think we should work to reduce it. But the pro-life movement has become so focused on making abortion illegal that it’s ignored all the other ways we could actually reduce abortion rates:
∙ Comprehensive sex education
∙ Accessible contraception
∙ Affordable healthcare
∙ Paid family leave
∙ Childcare support
∙ Living wages
∙ Addressing poverty
States with the strictest abortion laws don’t have lower abortion rates. They have higher rates of maternal mortality, higher rates of infant mortality, and higher rates of poverty. If the goal is actually to protect life, those policies are failing.
And here’s the deeper problem: You can’t claim to be pro-life while supporting policies that harm children after they’re born. When you vote for politicians who:
∙ Strip healthcare from poor children
∙ Cut WIC and SNAP benefits that keep babies fed
∙ Oppose paid family leave
∙ Oppose universal pre-K
∙ Cut funding for schools
∙ Separate families at the border
…then “pro-life” just means “anti-abortion.” It doesn’t actually mean you value all life equally. It means you value one specific stage of life, and then that concern evaporates at birth.
The Bible is filled with commands to care for children, widows, orphans, and the poor. But somehow those commands get ignored when they conflict with conservative economic policy. That’s selective biblical application, which is exactly what you’re accusing me of.
On “loving everyone means no consequences”:
You keep framing this as if I’m saying there should be no law enforcement at all. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying:
1. Not all laws are just, and Christians have a duty to recognize when they’re not
2. Consequences should be proportionate to the harm caused
3. Context matters when evaluating someone’s actions
4. The government’s current immigration enforcement is causing enormous harm, including killing U.S. citizens
You ask: “Where is the fine line of justice drawn?”
Here’s where: At harm. Murder, rape, abuse (they harm others). Someone crossing a border to work and feed their family doesn’t harm you. Pretending those are morally equivalent is absurd.
On your “major disagreements”:
You list nine objections to my argument. Let me address the most important ones:
“False equivalence (I can disagree on HOW to help people without that meaning I don’t care about them.”
But methods matter. If your “method” of helping involves cutting food stamps, denying healthcare, and deporting parents of U.S. citizen children, then those methods ARE harmful. You don’t get credit for good intentions when your policies cause suffering.
“Confusing personal ethics with the duty of the state (Romans 13 says the government’s job is JUSTICE, not mercy.”
This is a false dichotomy. Biblical justice includes mercy. They’re not opposed. And when the government becomes unjust (by killing citizens, terrorizing families, oppressing the vulnerable), Christians don’t just shrug and say “well, that’s the government’s job.” We resist.
“The ‘No Exceptions’ fallacy (Your ‘love all neighbors’ is selective. You prioritize illegal immigrants and LGBTQ individuals while ignoring the unborn, struggling citizens, and children.”
I’m not asking you to choose between caring about different groups. I’m asking you to stop using your faith to justify harm. You can care about unborn children AND immigrant families. You can care about struggling citizens AND asylum seekers. The only reason you see this as either/or is because your politics require you to choose.
“Zero recognition of trade-offs (If letting illegals in harms existing citizens, but removing them harms the illegals, which do we pick?”
Show me the harm. What specific, concrete harm does an undocumented person working in a restaurant or on a farm cause to you? What harm does a family living peacefully in a community cause?
You can’t point to abstract economic fears or vague cultural anxieties and call that “harm” equivalent to the actual, concrete harm of deportation: families destroyed, children traumatized, people killed (like what happened in Minnesota), communities terrorized.
The “trade-off” you’re describing isn’t real. It’s a justification for cruelty.
On your closing:
You say the Bible remains eternal and forever true, and I agree. But you’re not applying it faithfully. You’re applying it selectively (using it to justify political positions that were formed first and scripturally defended second).
The Bible is clear: care for the stranger, defend the oppressed, feed the hungry, welcome the outcast, love without condition. Not “do these things if they entered legally.” Not “do these things unless it conflicts with your political party.” Just do them.
You’re right that if we still disagree after this, we disagree. But our disagreement isn’t academic or theoretical. Your political positions have real consequences:
∙ Families being separated
∙ People being deported to danger
∙ U.S. citizens being killed by ICE
∙ Catholic families too afraid to go to church
∙ Women dying because they can’t access abortion care for medical emergencies
∙ Children going hungry
This isn’t about differing opinions on tax policy.
This is about human suffering that your politics enable.
You can quote Romans 13 all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re defending systems that harm people, and you’re doing it in Jesus’ name. That’s not faithfulness. That’s making your political party your god and retrofitting the Bible to justify it.
The question isn’t whether you should bring your faith into politics. You should. The question is whether you’re bringing Jesus into your politics, or bringing your politics to Jesus and asking him to bless them.
Thank you for your thoughts as well. God Bless You.
The one thing I will apologize for was my response time to this. I don't always have the time to respond to long comments, but still enjoy reading them (and, yes, I read all three comments). I will highlight a few things you stated but the rest I'll leave be. It is very clear that we do not agree on the fundamentals, but maybe I'll write a future post. And take the time to fully elaborate on the conservative stance involving the topics you bring up.
In regards to the ad hominem fallacy statement, it is true. I understand you were challenging the ideas of conservatives, but the issue is you directly personalized it. How many times did you state “Your beliefs, your faith, are you really, are you this/that…” If you had brought up the conservative/liberal parties as a whole by making statements like “they do this, that, and believe x,y,z…” that would have been appropriate.
The point of my post was to explain that when discussing politics among Christians, we should not view each other as “liberal vs. conservative” but Christians seeking the truth and understanding of Christ in politics. But you directly pointed me out for being a conservative. Therefore, proving my point. Now, did I personally throw back the “you and your beliefs” statements? Absolutely. Because since it was personalized, I had to defend myself and my own relationship with God–which you attacked just because I stated I'm a conservative. That is asking for division, not seeking peace.
I still haven't questioned your faith and understanding of God, only questioned why you believe certain things for the sake of elaboration. Which is a requirement for any political/theological topic. But if you can't understand me about this, then that's fine. I at least tried to inform you that there's a better way to talk about politics with someone you disagree with on the front end. I don't feel bad for this conversation at all, I just wish you hadn't initially targeted my conservative stance.
Now the main reason why I'm not going to respond to the rest of your statements is because of your comment about “obeying the law” and the comparisons used from the Bible. Not because I don't have an answer, but I have nothing to prove. Again, if anything, I'll write a future post about it.
But let me be clear, I never said we shouldn't question the law or that there are such things as unjust laws. You and I just simply disagree on what is and isn't considered a just law. It's as simple as that. And it's very clear that is the case considering your understanding that “justice is mercy in action” is–in my opinion based on biblical standards–considered very unrealistic in terms of government. Spiritually and how we treat others mercy in action is applicable 100%. But in how a country is run so that it can divide the just from the unjust…”mercy in action” is only asking for more issues.
Also. I'm bringing this up because it was incredibly harsh. To say that “pro-life” means that I don't value all life equally (at whatever stage) just shows you haven't spoken to enough conservatives to understand what they stand for. And to personalize that against me is incredibly immature and rude. You could have said “conservatives believe this” instead of me personally. Because, guess what? You don't know me or know the fact that I actually have someone close to me who's had an abortion for the very reasons you did indeed list. But she's 100% pro-life and fighting for policies and nonprofits who want to help the problem. It's also insensitive to say abortion is a tragedy, then attack the ones who've been through it and try to solve the issue the way they know is best (from that experience).
And you forget something she understands. Government policies and decisions take time (do I like that? No). How long did it take for them to flip the Roe vs. Wade case? How long did it take for Congress to make it up to the State governments to vote on revoking abortion rights? It all took time. Now, we're here–but (like my initial post was talking about) everyone's screaming about liberal vs. conservative instead of actually getting things done and having proper discussions instead of arguments of why I'm believing incorrectly and need to make sure I'm not just “asking God to bless my political decision” instead of bringing Him in on it.
I can't change what you believe and I won't. And I'm certainly not changing what I believe, either. I attempted to gain understanding to have a discussion, by asking questions…but this is just both of us playing offense/defense and therefore pointless. I don't mind if you stick around on my blog for future posts. But I genuinely do ask that next time, don't personalize it. Generalize it: “the conservatives believe…meanwhile, the liberals believe…” How we communicate does matter. I don't want to drop a “YOU” statement ever again unless it is for a legitimate question: “do you believe that…do you think that…” Ask questions before jumping into the debate, to ensure we are having a conversation on the topic discussed in the article posted.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my responses, even if you’ve chosen not to engage with the substance of them.
I understand you feel I personalized this conversation inappropriately. But your original post was explicitly personal. You wrote about YOUR conversations with YOUR mom, YOUR beliefs about how Christians should engage in politics, YOUR conviction that conservative positions reflect biblical standards. You used “we” throughout to describe Christians who hold conservative views.
When you write a personal post about your faith and your politics, it’s reasonable for someone to respond by examining whether your faith and your politics actually align. That’s not ad hominem. That’s engagement with your actual argument.
If you wanted an abstract discussion about “what conservatives believe vs. what liberals believe,” you could have written that post. But you didn’t. You wrote about how YOU, as a Christian, navigate politics. So I responded to you.
That said, I notice you didn’t actually engage with any of the substantive points I raised:
∙ You didn’t address ICE killing U.S. citizens
∙ You didn’t address Catholic families being too afraid to attend church
∙ You didn’t address whether laws that cause this harm are just
∙ You didn’t defend the policy gaps in pro-life advocacy (no healthcare, no family leave, no childcare support)
∙ You didn’t explain how Romans 13 applies when government becomes oppressive
∙ You didn’t address Jesus’s repeated prioritizing of people over law
Instead, you focused entirely on tone and process. That tells me you don’t have good answers to those questions.
You say “we just disagree on what’s a just law.” But that’s not a small disagreement. That’s the entire conversation. If you think laws that result in killing citizens and terrorizing families are just because “they’re enforcing immigration law,” then we have fundamentally different understandings of justice, morality, and Christianity.
I’m genuinely sorry if someone close to you has experienced abortion. That’s painful, and I don’t take that lightly. But the existence of pro-life people who’ve had abortions doesn’t address my actual critique: that pro-life politics doesn’t actually support life after birth. If your friend is fighting for policies and nonprofits that support mothers and children, that’s good. But the political movement she’s aligning with is actively cutting those supports.
You say I should ask questions before jumping into debate. But I did engage your actual argument. You made claims about how Christians should do politics. I responded by challenging whether your politics reflect Christian values. That IS the conversation.
If you write a future post elaborating on conservative positions, I’d be interested to see if you address the actual critiques I raised. But if it’s more Romans 13 prooftexting without addressing when government becomes oppressive, or more “we just disagree” without defending actual harm caused by actual policies, then it won’t be any more convincing than this conversation was.
I do appreciate that you tried to engage, even if ultimately you’ve chosen not to. But I’d encourage you to sit with the questions I raised, even if you never answer them publicly:
∙ Is it just to kill U.S. citizens while enforcing immigration law?
∙ Is it just to terrorize families so they’re afraid to go to church?
∙ Does Jesus add qualifications to “welcome the stranger” that you’re importing?
∙ Can you really be pro-life while supporting policies that harm children after birth?
∙ Are you bringing Jesus into your politics, or asking him to bless positions you already hold?
You don’t owe me answers. But you owe yourself honest wrestling with these questions.
My final comment. To say that you weren't attacking me directly or my beliefs and that it was appropriate for the topic means you were going by your own, personal understanding. Not seeking to understand me or why I made the post or believe what I do. That proves you're focused on yourself more than you are about having a conversation with the other person--me. It also proves you're not good at listening.
At the beginning of my post, I said this was NOT a political post. But about my thoughts about a conversation I had with my mom. Yes, that was personal. Personal in the sense of clarifying I'm talking about "people to people" and it's meant to be preachy and not political.
So for you to say that your comment is still appropriate means you either didn't read the post or you simply wanted to argue. You can argue, just pick a different blog to do that on because there are plenty here. But on my blog we can conversate but I refuse to allow personalized attacks. Because your last comment is still classified as an attack. You still keep using the "you" statements at me after I clarified that I'm not going to respond to you directly, because I don't want an argument. If anything I'll write a post in the future. Which I said. But you made a remark that you "noticed I didn't answer." Yeah, it's a choice. And you're right, I owe you no answers. I already said that. But you felt compelled to have the "final say" by addressing what I didn't respond. And saying I have to "wrestle" with these questions? That's still an attack and proves you are determined to argue instead of seek peace (the point of my post you continue to miss). I ended my side with "I cannot change what you believe, so I'm not going to." But you ended yours with still fully listing all the things you disagree about me and my beliefs before ending the comment.
You're wanting more argument but I'm wanting peace in conversation. And for that, I'm not continuing this. Because we're not in agreement on terms of how to conversate. Also, remember, the title of my post was "Ceasefire." But I'm wondering if you understand what ceasefire means in a conversation. Because it's not what you're doing. I pray for peace in your life and for any future conversations you have with anyone. God bless you and keep you.
I appreciate your heart for reducing division, and I agree that compassion should lead our conversations. But I think there’s a fundamental problem with the framing here that we need to address honestly.
You’re advocating for kinder delivery while maintaining that certain groups of people (immigrants, LGBTQ individuals) are inherently sinful or don’t belong. But here’s the thing: you can’t separate how you say something from what you’re saying. Telling someone their marriage is invalid or their family should be deported, but doing it “with compassion,” doesn’t make it compassionate. It makes it paternalistic.
The political divide isn’t just about tone or manners. It’s about whose humanity we’re willing to defend. When you say “there’s no middle ground” on LGBTQ relationships, you’re not taking a neutral theological stance. You’re actively supporting policies and rhetoric that harm real people. Kids get kicked out of their homes. People lose their jobs. Families are torn apart. That’s not abstract theology. That’s concrete suffering.
And let’s talk about the Matthew 25 passage you quoted, because I think you’re closer to the truth there than you realize. Jesus didn’t say “I was a stranger, and you made sure I had the proper documentation before inviting me in.” He didn’t say “I was hungry, but only if you were here legally.” The entire point of that passage is radical, unconditional care for the vulnerable, with no asterisks, no qualifying conditions.
Here’s where your post breaks down for me: You want to “overcome evil with good” and “seek peace,” but you’re still defending a political movement that:
∙ Terrorizes immigrant families (like what’s happening in Minnesota right now)
∙ Strips healthcare from the poor
∙ Demonizes refugees and asylum seekers
∙ Attacks the dignity of LGBTQ people
∙ Concentrates wealth among the already wealthy while gutting support for the vulnerable
You can’t be for the “least of these” in your personal life while voting for policies that crush them. That’s not political division. That’s moral contradiction.
When you say “sin is sin” and we shouldn’t compromise on abortion or LGBTQ issues, but then vote for leaders who mock the disabled, brag about sexual assault, lie constantly, stoke hatred, and enrich themselves through corruption, what message does that send? It says those “sins” don’t actually matter. It says the only “real” sins are the ones that align with your political tribe.
Here’s my actual concern with your approach: You’re treating the political divide as a communication problem when it’s actually a justice problem. It’s not that Democrats are too mean or too loud. It’s that we fundamentally disagree about whether certain people deserve dignity, safety, and equal treatment under the law.
You want peaceful conversations, and so do I. But peace without justice isn’t peace. It’s just the absence of conflict for those comfortable enough not to be harmed by the status quo. The prophets didn’t call for civility. They called for justice. Jesus didn’t politely ask the money changers to consider a different business model.
If you’re truly serious about following Christ’s example, I’d challenge you to ask: What if your politics are the problem, not your tone? What if the “screaming voices” you want to tune out are actually people crying out because they’re being harmed, not by rhetoric, but by actual policy?
You say you want to see change in your community. Here’s my question: Are you willing to examine whether your politics actually reflect what Scripture calls you to do? Because all the compassionate conversations in the world won’t help if you’re still empowering leaders who actively harm the vulnerable.
I’m not saying this to attack you. I’m saying it because I think you genuinely want to live out your faith. But right now, your faith and your politics are in direct contradiction. The solution isn’t to be nicer about your politics. It’s to examine whether your politics actually reflect what Scripture calls us to do.
Because here’s what I see: The version of Christianity that’s become entangled with MAGA politics isn’t actually rooted in the Gospel. It’s rooted in Christian nationalism, which has a documented history of being built on racism, xenophobia, and the protection of power rather than the protection of the vulnerable. That’s not me being divisive. That’s history.
When the Bible talks about welcoming the stranger, it doesn’t add “unless they crossed the border illegally.” When Jesus says “whatever you did for the least of these,” he doesn’t footnote it with “except if they’re undocumented.”
When he commands us to love our neighbors, he doesn’t give us permission to decide who counts as a neighbor based on their documentation status or who they love.
Your faith and politics absolutely should align. But they should align with what the Bible actually says about caring for the vulnerable, welcoming the stranger, defending the oppressed, and loving without condition. Not with a political ideology that’s co-opted Christian language while rejecting Christian values.
The question isn’t whether you should bring your faith into politics. The question is: Are you bringing Jesus into your politics, or are you bringing your politics to Jesus and asking him to bless them?
Christ called us to love our neighbors. Not just the ones who look like us, believe like us, or were born in the same country. All of them. No exceptions. No asterisks. No “but they broke the law” or “but the Bible says.” Just love.
That’s the standard. Anything less isn’t “Biblical conservatism.” It’s just conservatism with a Bible verse attached.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this post and leave a comment. I read your response and do thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, I strongly believe that my point still remains solid. My theology and beliefs in politics or how I manage political decisions are, in fact, Biblical and solid. However, there is a major fundamental issue with your entire argument.
What I find the most interesting about your argument is that you focus on "justice" and yet your final statement you say it should not be about "but they broke the law." I am curious as to what your definition of justice is because it means to "judge." The very purpose of justice is to divide the innocent from the guilty, so if we go about "loving everyone" then that means people like murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, and all criminals of the sort should simply be loved and the victims have no justice at all. As Christians, we are to love everyone. We are to offer them the forgiveness and salvation of Christ...but as American citizens or illegals we do not get a "get out of jail free card" from the crimes we commit against the government.
If love is the standard, then tell me what love is to you? Where is the fine line of justice drawn? What is justice to you? And where do you get your definition of justice? Because if it's just selective justice based on personal agenda and what feels right and humane, then that is absolutely not biblical. It is anit-God and anti-America.
Jesus calls us to obey the law, not break it. If a person from a different country enters the United States of America, they become a law breaker. Therefore, a criminal in the eyes of the law. We are not against immigration, but we are against illegal immigration. The fine line that CAN divide the just from the un-just. If a innocent man decided to illegally bring him and his family into this nation, he chose to face the consequences. He chose to break the law. The consequences that follow is a result of his mistake. Yet, you call this "paternalistic." No, it's the result of one's choices.
Or should we promote a life where consequences do not exist? Won't "no consequences" simply promote more evil doing and mix the justice with the un-justice? You keep saying enforcing the law isn't love. Illegal aliens are criminals because they violated one or both of two laws: 8 U.S.C. 1325 and/or 8 U.S.C. 1326. According to your definition of "love," loving people would mean not enforcing the law on those criminals. But you proceed to call for justice and says that's what the Democrats are doing.
So which is it? Does justice include carrying out the existing law as stated in 8 USC 1325 & 1326? Because justice means the law is followed.
Please, I would like an elaboration of what "justice" you believe Democrats are trying to bring, since they're the ones in open defiance of 8 USC 1325 & 1326. If justice means ignoring laws we don't like, then "justice" just means "whatever I want." Without the rule of law, there is no justice, just the arbitrary exercise of power.
Biblical Support: Enforcing law against wrongdoers is the government's God-given job.
Romans 13:3-4: "Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad... But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain."
Deuteronomy 16:20: "Justice, and only justice, you shall follow."
Not selective justice based on which group you sympathize with, actual justice.
My major disagreements and observations with the rest of your argument:
1. Ad Hominem fallacy: You never engage my actual argument (seeking peace in political discussions). Instead, you attack my political positions instead. This also proves my point by being divisive and judgmental while accusing me of being un-Christian or directly challenging my faith. My entire post was specifically about talking to the Christians and how we should seek peace in our political conversations. You may have carried a gentle tone with your response, and I thank you for that, but it is not Christ-like to throw in the term "peace" while specifically picking apart my beliefs and faith. Just because you believe I am wrong. If this post was political instead of theological, where I am discussing the different policies of both the liberals and conservatives, your comment would have been appropriate. But instead, your comment perfectly proves my point of the much greater need for Christians to better carry themselves in politics. No one should be accusing anyone of not being Christ-like or a "real" Christian, rather we should be discussing what it means to being Christ-like and a Follower of Jesus Christ.
2. False equivalence fallacy: You conflate policy disagreements with lack of compassion. I can disagree on HOW to help people without that meaning I don't care about them. Both sides want good outcomes; we just disagree on methods.
3. Your definition of love: You define love as sentimental affirmation rather than biblical self-sacrifice for others' good. Biblical love includes truth, correction, boundaries, and sometimes saying "no" (John 8:11, Proverbs 27:6, Revelation 3:19).
4. Confusing personal ethics with the duty of the state: You apply personal Christian ethics (love, mercy) to government policy. But Romans 13 says the government's job is JUSTICE, bearing the sword to punish wrongdoing, not showing unconditional mercy. In the OT, the job of Israel's government is clearly primarily to enforce the law and maintain order. When, Biblically speaking, love and mercy are for the sinners. All sinners can find repentance and salvation no matter what they did. That is NOT the same scales as the enforcement of the government law in the United States of America. Romans 13 commands us to obey our government, not go against it just because we are "Christians, saved, and do whatever we can because we are always right in the eyes of God's law and the government's law."
5. The justice contradiction: You say enforcing immigration law isn't loving, but then call for "justice." So does justice include enforcing law or not? You seem to want it both ways. Real justice means upholding the law consistently (Deuteronomy 16:20, Proverbs 17:15).
6. The "No Exceptions" fallacy: Your "love all neighbors with no exceptions" is actually highly selective. You are prioritizing illegal immigrants and LGBTQ individuals while ignoring the unborn, struggling citizens, and children harmed by progressive policies. That's not "no exceptions". Babies should be born, legal American citizens should be priority over illegal, and children should be protected (and parents should remain as the protectors) from sexuality agendas and being forced to learn the world of transgenderism.
7. The "Love trumps the Bible" incoherence: Is you saying love matters more than "what the Bible says," but you also got the command to love from the Bible. So you are using the Bible to override the Bible. A major contradiction.
8. Denying human responsibility: Your framework treats illegal immigrants, the poor, and LGBTQ individuals as passive victims with no moral agency, while blaming me or my political party for their situations. This contradicts biblical teaching on individual responsibility. If an illegal gets caught and sent back home, that is them taking responsibility. If a transgender individual is told to use the proper bathroom according to their BORN sex, that is them taking responsibility. (Ezekiel 18:20, Galatians 6:5, Romans 14:12).
9. Zero recognition of trade-offs: Governance is not simple and there's one obvious "loving" answer to every question. But real-world policy involves balancing competing goods (security vs. compassion, justice vs. mercy, protecting children vs. affirming adults). If letting illegals in harms existing citizens, but removing them harms the illegals, which do we pick? Either way, someone is going to be harmed. And it appears you would rather have the US citizen harmed than the illegal, to whom this country owes nothing. Faithful Christians can disagree on these prudential judgments (Proverbs 11:14, 24:6, James 1:5).
Romans 13: 1-4," Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same."
I strongly encouraging all of Romans 13 because it talks about our roles as Christians with politics. And I pray this sheds light on the Truth of Jesus Christ because the Bible remains eternal and forever true. However, if you and I still disagree, we disagree. Regardless, thank you for sharing your thoughts and for reading my own. God Bless You.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I can tell you’ve put thought into this. However, I need to address some fundamental problems with your argument before we can have a productive conversation.
On what I actually said:
You claim I committed an “ad hominem fallacy” by attacking your political positions instead of engaging your argument about seeking peace. But that’s not what happened. Your post was explicitly about how Christians should engage in politics while maintaining their conservative values. I responded by challenging whether those conservative political positions actually align with Christian values. That’s not ad hominem. That’s the entire point.
You can’t write a post about faith and politics and then claim it’s inappropriate for someone to examine whether your politics reflect your faith. If your argument is “Christians should be more peaceful in political conversations while maintaining biblical standards,” then someone pointing out that your political positions contradict biblical standards is directly relevant.
On Romans 13 and “obeying the law”:
You’ve built your entire counterargument on the idea that Christians must obey government authority and that enforcing immigration law is the government’s God-given job. But this interpretation has a fatal flaw: it would make the early Christians sinners.
Paul himself, who wrote Romans 13, repeatedly broke Roman law by preaching the gospel. He was imprisoned multiple times for civil disobedience. Peter explicitly said “We must obey God rather than human authority” when ordered to stop preaching (Acts 5:29). The Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh to save babies, and God blessed them for it (Exodus 1:15-21). Rahab hid spies from the government and is praised in Hebrews 11 for her faith.
If Romans 13 means Christians must obey all government laws without question, then:
∙ Christians in Nazi Germany had a biblical duty to turn in Jews
∙ Christians under slavery had a biblical duty not to help people escape
∙ Civil rights activists who broke segregation laws were sinning
∙ Jesus himself sinned by violating Sabbath laws
That’s obviously absurd. Romans 13 establishes that God ordains governance as a structure, not that every government action is righteous or that every law is just. When government becomes the oppressor, Christians have a duty to resist, not comply.
On your definition of justice:
You say justice means “to judge” and divide the innocent from the guilty, and therefore we can’t just “love everyone” without consequences for lawbreakers. But this reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of biblical justice.
Biblical justice isn’t primarily about punishment. It’s about restoration, defending the vulnerable, and making things right. When the prophets cry out for justice, they’re not demanding stricter law enforcement. They’re demanding that the powerful stop exploiting the powerless:
∙ Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
∙ Jeremiah 22:3: “Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed.”
∙ Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
Notice that justice and mercy aren’t opposed in Scripture. They’re united. Justice IS mercy in action. It’s standing with the oppressed. It’s protecting the vulnerable. It’s confronting systems that harm people.
You’re conflating justice with legality, but laws can be unjust. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. Denying women the vote was legal. The Holocaust was legal under Nazi law. “It’s the law” has never been a sufficient moral argument, and it’s certainly not a Christian one.
On comparing immigration violations to murder and rape:
You write: “if we go about ‘loving everyone’ then that means people like murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, and all criminals of the sort should simply be loved and the victims have no justice at all.”
This is a deeply disingenuous comparison. A person crossing a border to escape violence or provide for their family is not morally equivalent to a murderer or rapist. Unlawful presence is a civil violation, legally equivalent to a parking ticket, not a violent crime.
And here’s what you need to understand: Many of the people being deported are following legal processes. Seeking asylum is legal under both U.S. and international law. Many asylum seekers present themselves at ports of entry, follow the process exactly as prescribed, and are still detained, separated from their children, or deported to danger.
So when you say “they chose to break the law,” you’re making an assumption that isn’t always true. And even when it is true, the “consequences” you’re defending include:
∙ Separating children from parents (often permanently)
∙ Detaining people in inhumane conditions
∙ Deporting people to countries where they’ll be killed
∙ Creating a climate of terror in entire communities
And speaking of consequences, let me tell you what’s actually happening in Minnesota right now, since I mentioned it in my original response:
ICE’s “Operation Metro Surge” has killed two U.S. citizens (Renée Good and Alex Pretti), conducted surveillance of Catholic churches, and created such a climate of fear that immigrant families are too afraid to attend Mass. Catholic leaders in Minnesota have publicly stated that their parishioners are terrified to come to church because of ICE.
So when you defend these operations by saying “they’re just enforcing the law,” you’re defending actions that
1. Killed American citizens
2. Terrorized Catholic families
3. Made people too afraid to worship
Is that justice? Is that what Romans 13 calls the government to do? Or is that exactly the kind of government oppression that Christians have a duty to resist?
On “choosing consequences”:
You write: “If a innocent man decided to illegally bring him and his family into this nation, he chose to face the consequences. He chose to break the law. The consequences that follow is a result of his mistake.”
But context matters. If someone is fleeing gang violence that’s killed their neighbors, if someone’s children are starving, if someone is escaping political persecution, their “choice” to cross a border is made under extreme duress. To call that a “choice” as if they had a range of good options is to ignore reality.
And Jesus himself modeled this understanding. When his disciples picked grain on the Sabbath (which was breaking the law), the Pharisees condemned them. Jesus’s response wasn’t “well, they chose to break the law and must face consequences.” It was “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). In other words, the law exists to serve people, not the other way around.
When the law crushes people, Jesus sides with people over the law. Every single time.
On Matthew 25:
You didn’t actually address my point about Matthew 25, so let me restate it:
Jesus says whatever we do for “the least of these,” we do for him. He specifically lists: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned.
Notice what’s NOT on that list: “the innocent,” “the law-abiding,” “the ones with proper documentation,” “the ones who made good choices.”
He doesn’t say “I was a stranger, but you checked my papers first.” He says “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” No qualifications. No asterisks. No footnotes about legal status.
So when immigrant families (who fit the biblical definition of “stranger”) are being terrorized, separated, and deported, and you defend those actions by saying “well, they broke the law,” you’re adding a condition Jesus didn’t add.
On abortion and the “least of these”:
You accuse me of prioritizing certain groups while ignoring the unborn. But here’s what I actually believe:
I think abortion is a tragedy. I think we should work to reduce it. But the pro-life movement has become so focused on making abortion illegal that it’s ignored all the other ways we could actually reduce abortion rates:
∙ Comprehensive sex education
∙ Accessible contraception
∙ Affordable healthcare
∙ Paid family leave
∙ Childcare support
∙ Living wages
∙ Addressing poverty
States with the strictest abortion laws don’t have lower abortion rates. They have higher rates of maternal mortality, higher rates of infant mortality, and higher rates of poverty. If the goal is actually to protect life, those policies are failing.
And here’s the deeper problem: You can’t claim to be pro-life while supporting policies that harm children after they’re born. When you vote for politicians who:
∙ Strip healthcare from poor children
∙ Cut WIC and SNAP benefits that keep babies fed
∙ Oppose paid family leave
∙ Oppose universal pre-K
∙ Cut funding for schools
∙ Separate families at the border
…then “pro-life” just means “anti-abortion.” It doesn’t actually mean you value all life equally. It means you value one specific stage of life, and then that concern evaporates at birth.
The Bible is filled with commands to care for children, widows, orphans, and the poor. But somehow those commands get ignored when they conflict with conservative economic policy. That’s selective biblical application, which is exactly what you’re accusing me of.
On “loving everyone means no consequences”:
You keep framing this as if I’m saying there should be no law enforcement at all. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying:
1. Not all laws are just, and Christians have a duty to recognize when they’re not
2. Consequences should be proportionate to the harm caused
3. Context matters when evaluating someone’s actions
4. The government’s current immigration enforcement is causing enormous harm, including killing U.S. citizens
You ask: “Where is the fine line of justice drawn?”
Here’s where: At harm. Murder, rape, abuse (they harm others). Someone crossing a border to work and feed their family doesn’t harm you. Pretending those are morally equivalent is absurd.
On your “major disagreements”:
You list nine objections to my argument. Let me address the most important ones:
“False equivalence (I can disagree on HOW to help people without that meaning I don’t care about them.”
But methods matter. If your “method” of helping involves cutting food stamps, denying healthcare, and deporting parents of U.S. citizen children, then those methods ARE harmful. You don’t get credit for good intentions when your policies cause suffering.
“Confusing personal ethics with the duty of the state (Romans 13 says the government’s job is JUSTICE, not mercy.”
This is a false dichotomy. Biblical justice includes mercy. They’re not opposed. And when the government becomes unjust (by killing citizens, terrorizing families, oppressing the vulnerable), Christians don’t just shrug and say “well, that’s the government’s job.” We resist.
“The ‘No Exceptions’ fallacy (Your ‘love all neighbors’ is selective. You prioritize illegal immigrants and LGBTQ individuals while ignoring the unborn, struggling citizens, and children.”
I’m not asking you to choose between caring about different groups. I’m asking you to stop using your faith to justify harm. You can care about unborn children AND immigrant families. You can care about struggling citizens AND asylum seekers. The only reason you see this as either/or is because your politics require you to choose.
“Zero recognition of trade-offs (If letting illegals in harms existing citizens, but removing them harms the illegals, which do we pick?”
Show me the harm. What specific, concrete harm does an undocumented person working in a restaurant or on a farm cause to you? What harm does a family living peacefully in a community cause?
You can’t point to abstract economic fears or vague cultural anxieties and call that “harm” equivalent to the actual, concrete harm of deportation: families destroyed, children traumatized, people killed (like what happened in Minnesota), communities terrorized.
The “trade-off” you’re describing isn’t real. It’s a justification for cruelty.
On your closing:
You say the Bible remains eternal and forever true, and I agree. But you’re not applying it faithfully. You’re applying it selectively (using it to justify political positions that were formed first and scripturally defended second).
The Bible is clear: care for the stranger, defend the oppressed, feed the hungry, welcome the outcast, love without condition. Not “do these things if they entered legally.” Not “do these things unless it conflicts with your political party.” Just do them.
You’re right that if we still disagree after this, we disagree. But our disagreement isn’t academic or theoretical. Your political positions have real consequences:
∙ Families being separated
∙ People being deported to danger
∙ U.S. citizens being killed by ICE
∙ Catholic families too afraid to go to church
∙ Women dying because they can’t access abortion care for medical emergencies
∙ Children going hungry
This isn’t about differing opinions on tax policy.
This is about human suffering that your politics enable.
You can quote Romans 13 all you want, but at the end of the day, you’re defending systems that harm people, and you’re doing it in Jesus’ name. That’s not faithfulness. That’s making your political party your god and retrofitting the Bible to justify it.
The question isn’t whether you should bring your faith into politics. You should. The question is whether you’re bringing Jesus into your politics, or bringing your politics to Jesus and asking him to bless them.
Thank you for your thoughts as well. God Bless You.
The one thing I will apologize for was my response time to this. I don't always have the time to respond to long comments, but still enjoy reading them (and, yes, I read all three comments). I will highlight a few things you stated but the rest I'll leave be. It is very clear that we do not agree on the fundamentals, but maybe I'll write a future post. And take the time to fully elaborate on the conservative stance involving the topics you bring up.
In regards to the ad hominem fallacy statement, it is true. I understand you were challenging the ideas of conservatives, but the issue is you directly personalized it. How many times did you state “Your beliefs, your faith, are you really, are you this/that…” If you had brought up the conservative/liberal parties as a whole by making statements like “they do this, that, and believe x,y,z…” that would have been appropriate.
The point of my post was to explain that when discussing politics among Christians, we should not view each other as “liberal vs. conservative” but Christians seeking the truth and understanding of Christ in politics. But you directly pointed me out for being a conservative. Therefore, proving my point. Now, did I personally throw back the “you and your beliefs” statements? Absolutely. Because since it was personalized, I had to defend myself and my own relationship with God–which you attacked just because I stated I'm a conservative. That is asking for division, not seeking peace.
I still haven't questioned your faith and understanding of God, only questioned why you believe certain things for the sake of elaboration. Which is a requirement for any political/theological topic. But if you can't understand me about this, then that's fine. I at least tried to inform you that there's a better way to talk about politics with someone you disagree with on the front end. I don't feel bad for this conversation at all, I just wish you hadn't initially targeted my conservative stance.
Now the main reason why I'm not going to respond to the rest of your statements is because of your comment about “obeying the law” and the comparisons used from the Bible. Not because I don't have an answer, but I have nothing to prove. Again, if anything, I'll write a future post about it.
But let me be clear, I never said we shouldn't question the law or that there are such things as unjust laws. You and I just simply disagree on what is and isn't considered a just law. It's as simple as that. And it's very clear that is the case considering your understanding that “justice is mercy in action” is–in my opinion based on biblical standards–considered very unrealistic in terms of government. Spiritually and how we treat others mercy in action is applicable 100%. But in how a country is run so that it can divide the just from the unjust…”mercy in action” is only asking for more issues.
Also. I'm bringing this up because it was incredibly harsh. To say that “pro-life” means that I don't value all life equally (at whatever stage) just shows you haven't spoken to enough conservatives to understand what they stand for. And to personalize that against me is incredibly immature and rude. You could have said “conservatives believe this” instead of me personally. Because, guess what? You don't know me or know the fact that I actually have someone close to me who's had an abortion for the very reasons you did indeed list. But she's 100% pro-life and fighting for policies and nonprofits who want to help the problem. It's also insensitive to say abortion is a tragedy, then attack the ones who've been through it and try to solve the issue the way they know is best (from that experience).
And you forget something she understands. Government policies and decisions take time (do I like that? No). How long did it take for them to flip the Roe vs. Wade case? How long did it take for Congress to make it up to the State governments to vote on revoking abortion rights? It all took time. Now, we're here–but (like my initial post was talking about) everyone's screaming about liberal vs. conservative instead of actually getting things done and having proper discussions instead of arguments of why I'm believing incorrectly and need to make sure I'm not just “asking God to bless my political decision” instead of bringing Him in on it.
I can't change what you believe and I won't. And I'm certainly not changing what I believe, either. I attempted to gain understanding to have a discussion, by asking questions…but this is just both of us playing offense/defense and therefore pointless. I don't mind if you stick around on my blog for future posts. But I genuinely do ask that next time, don't personalize it. Generalize it: “the conservatives believe…meanwhile, the liberals believe…” How we communicate does matter. I don't want to drop a “YOU” statement ever again unless it is for a legitimate question: “do you believe that…do you think that…” Ask questions before jumping into the debate, to ensure we are having a conversation on the topic discussed in the article posted.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my responses, even if you’ve chosen not to engage with the substance of them.
I understand you feel I personalized this conversation inappropriately. But your original post was explicitly personal. You wrote about YOUR conversations with YOUR mom, YOUR beliefs about how Christians should engage in politics, YOUR conviction that conservative positions reflect biblical standards. You used “we” throughout to describe Christians who hold conservative views.
When you write a personal post about your faith and your politics, it’s reasonable for someone to respond by examining whether your faith and your politics actually align. That’s not ad hominem. That’s engagement with your actual argument.
If you wanted an abstract discussion about “what conservatives believe vs. what liberals believe,” you could have written that post. But you didn’t. You wrote about how YOU, as a Christian, navigate politics. So I responded to you.
That said, I notice you didn’t actually engage with any of the substantive points I raised:
∙ You didn’t address ICE killing U.S. citizens
∙ You didn’t address Catholic families being too afraid to attend church
∙ You didn’t address whether laws that cause this harm are just
∙ You didn’t defend the policy gaps in pro-life advocacy (no healthcare, no family leave, no childcare support)
∙ You didn’t explain how Romans 13 applies when government becomes oppressive
∙ You didn’t address Jesus’s repeated prioritizing of people over law
Instead, you focused entirely on tone and process. That tells me you don’t have good answers to those questions.
You say “we just disagree on what’s a just law.” But that’s not a small disagreement. That’s the entire conversation. If you think laws that result in killing citizens and terrorizing families are just because “they’re enforcing immigration law,” then we have fundamentally different understandings of justice, morality, and Christianity.
I’m genuinely sorry if someone close to you has experienced abortion. That’s painful, and I don’t take that lightly. But the existence of pro-life people who’ve had abortions doesn’t address my actual critique: that pro-life politics doesn’t actually support life after birth. If your friend is fighting for policies and nonprofits that support mothers and children, that’s good. But the political movement she’s aligning with is actively cutting those supports.
You say I should ask questions before jumping into debate. But I did engage your actual argument. You made claims about how Christians should do politics. I responded by challenging whether your politics reflect Christian values. That IS the conversation.
If you write a future post elaborating on conservative positions, I’d be interested to see if you address the actual critiques I raised. But if it’s more Romans 13 prooftexting without addressing when government becomes oppressive, or more “we just disagree” without defending actual harm caused by actual policies, then it won’t be any more convincing than this conversation was.
I do appreciate that you tried to engage, even if ultimately you’ve chosen not to. But I’d encourage you to sit with the questions I raised, even if you never answer them publicly:
∙ Is it just to kill U.S. citizens while enforcing immigration law?
∙ Is it just to terrorize families so they’re afraid to go to church?
∙ Does Jesus add qualifications to “welcome the stranger” that you’re importing?
∙ Can you really be pro-life while supporting policies that harm children after birth?
∙ Are you bringing Jesus into your politics, or asking him to bless positions you already hold?
You don’t owe me answers. But you owe yourself honest wrestling with these questions.
I wish you well.
My final comment. To say that you weren't attacking me directly or my beliefs and that it was appropriate for the topic means you were going by your own, personal understanding. Not seeking to understand me or why I made the post or believe what I do. That proves you're focused on yourself more than you are about having a conversation with the other person--me. It also proves you're not good at listening.
At the beginning of my post, I said this was NOT a political post. But about my thoughts about a conversation I had with my mom. Yes, that was personal. Personal in the sense of clarifying I'm talking about "people to people" and it's meant to be preachy and not political.
So for you to say that your comment is still appropriate means you either didn't read the post or you simply wanted to argue. You can argue, just pick a different blog to do that on because there are plenty here. But on my blog we can conversate but I refuse to allow personalized attacks. Because your last comment is still classified as an attack. You still keep using the "you" statements at me after I clarified that I'm not going to respond to you directly, because I don't want an argument. If anything I'll write a post in the future. Which I said. But you made a remark that you "noticed I didn't answer." Yeah, it's a choice. And you're right, I owe you no answers. I already said that. But you felt compelled to have the "final say" by addressing what I didn't respond. And saying I have to "wrestle" with these questions? That's still an attack and proves you are determined to argue instead of seek peace (the point of my post you continue to miss). I ended my side with "I cannot change what you believe, so I'm not going to." But you ended yours with still fully listing all the things you disagree about me and my beliefs before ending the comment.
You're wanting more argument but I'm wanting peace in conversation. And for that, I'm not continuing this. Because we're not in agreement on terms of how to conversate. Also, remember, the title of my post was "Ceasefire." But I'm wondering if you understand what ceasefire means in a conversation. Because it's not what you're doing. I pray for peace in your life and for any future conversations you have with anyone. God bless you and keep you.
Good day.